Probiotics in the critically ill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Critical illness results in changes to the microbiology of the gastrointestinal tract, leading to a loss of commensal flora and an overgrowth of potentially pathogenic bacteria. Administering certain strains of live bacteria (probiotics) to critically ill patients may restore balance to the microbiota and have positive effects on immune function and gastrointestinal structure and function. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of probiotics in critically ill patients on clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We searched computerized databases, reference lists of pertinent articles, and personal files from 1980 to 2011. We included randomized controlled trials enrolling critically ill adults, which evaluated probiotics compared to a placebo and reported clinically important outcomes (infections, mortality, and length of stay). A total of 23 randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Probiotics were associated with reduced infectious complications as documented in 11 trials (risk ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.99; p = .03; test for heterogeneity p = .05; I 44%). When data from the seven trials reporting ventilator-associated pneumonia were pooled, ventilator-associated pneumonia rates were also significantly reduced with probiotics (risk ratio 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97; p = .03; test for heterogeneity p = .16; I 35%). Probiotics were associated with a trend toward reduced intensive care unit mortality (risk ratio 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.59-1.09; p = .16; test for heterogeneity p = .89; I 0%) but did not influence hospital mortality. Probiotics had no effect on intensive care unit or hospital length of stay. Compared to trials of higher methodological quality, greater treatment effects were observed in trials of a lower methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics appear to reduce infectious complications including ventilator-associated pneumonia and may influence intensive care unit mortality. However, clinical and statistical heterogeneity and imprecise estimates preclude strong clinical recommendations. Further research on probiotics in the critically ill is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".